People love to take your picture in Washington.I was in that labyrinthine town to
speak at a symposium entitled “Sam Francis and America’s Culture War,” which
had been arranged by Fran Griffin of FGF books to promote a posthumous
collection of Sam Francis’s columns, Shots
Fired: Sam Francis on America’s Culture War. As I was getting ready to
give my speech at the National Press Club, I looked at all the photos on the
wall. It was full of pictures of celebrities I had known from my youth—people
like Art Buchwald, Eric Severeid, Marvin Kalb—but somehow they all looked older
and uglier than I remembered them. These photos were not a thing of beauty and
a joy forever, or even for the few short minutes I had to view them. So they
must have served some other purpose. What the picture did was to testify to the
bona fides of the people it portrayed. Both people were validated by the photo
of one man giving an award and the other man receiving it—at least in primitive
cultures like Washington.

The converse of the same thought occurred to me after I gave
my talk. After Joe Sobran gave his speech, someone pushed me in his direction
and demanded to take a picture of both of us. Just before the flash went off, I
turned to Joe and said, “Joe, this picture is going to ruin your career.”
Without missing a beat, Joe responded, “Mutually assured destruction.”

In other words, the idea that somehow Joe was going to be
held responsible for what I said or that I was going to be held responsible for
what he said, struck us both as inexpressibly funny. It was almost as funny as
the idea that either of us had careers to worry about.

CSpan was there, but VDARE.COM readers
probably won’t get to watch the conference because of an extraordinary performance
by E. Michael Jones, editor of Culture Wars and a prize specimen even by the
standards of my lifelong study of characters on the American Right. Jones
denounced Elizabethan England, Puritans, capitalism, Protestants,
“revolutionary Jews” (but not all Jews, he was quite nuanced) and, for good
measure, the idea that race matters or that America was ever a nation. I like
Catholic bigots as much as anyone else, but this had nothing to do with
anything Sam Francis ever wrote - except where it actually contradicted his
views. Sam felt bitterly that he never had the recognition he deserved while he
was alive. Jones ensured that he won’t get it now that he’s dead.

Mr. Brimelow had apparently calmed down by Monday because
missing from his blog entry was the hysteria which characterized his e-mails in
the immediate aftermath of the conference. It is a rare and disedifying sight
to see a grown man so consumed by fear, but here was Peter Brimelow absolutely
petrified. And what was he afraid of?That someone might have photographed him standing next to E. Michael
Jones!In the immediate aftermath
of the conference, Mr. Brimelow professed to be appalled by my talk, which is
his right. The really funny part came later in the same communication when he
announced that “I can’t be associated with anything in which that speech is
featured [or] . . . to be in any photographs or material of any kind in which
Jones is present.” (I had to edit his original text because fear evidently
rendered his syntax incoherent.)

Now that is serious fear. Unfortunately, it was a bit too
late to do anything about it. On page 2 of a brochure handed out by the
Fitzgerald Griffin Foundation on the day of the conference, there we are—Peter
Brimelow and I—cheek by jowl, pictures and all, right next to each other. It’s
not quite the usual press club deal with the two of us arm in arm the one
receiving a plaque from the other, but you got the impression that Peter
Brimelow felt this was career-ending material, and there wasn’t a damn thing that
Peter Brimelow could do about it. Hence, the terror.

That impression was strengthened when Peter Brimelow’s lawyer
contacted conference organizer Fran Griffin on the Tuesday following the talk.
In one of those chilling missives that only lawyers know how to write, Fran
Griffin, who is a woman by the way, (Why do people like Peter Brimelow beat up
on women for things they did not say?) was informed that she must respect Peter
Brimelow’s “right of publicity and exclude his speech and any reference to his conference
participation from any publication that includes Dr. Jones’s speech.” (As some
indication of the sort of association which Mr. Brimelow does not fear, his
v-dare site has links to the Zionist fanatic Daniel Pipes.)

Well, as I said, it’s a little late for that. Peter Brimelow
can ask his lawyer to beat up Fran Griffin or beat the sea with chains or
whatever, but the simple fact of the matter is that Peter Brimelow and E.
Michael Jones were, on March 20, 2007, not only in the same room together but were
both speakers at the same conference, and all of the lawyers in Washington,
D.C. can’t change that fact.

Fran Griffin’s response was suffused with a common sense
notably absent from the hysterical response of Peter Brimelow and his pit bull
lawyer:

If Peter Brimelow is
so worried about Jones, he should take the advice I gave him last Tuesday:
ignore Jones, don’t mention Jones, don’t complain about Jones, pretend Jones
doesn’t exist. This is the most sensible thing he could have done. If he is
worried about Jones, why is he linking himself with him? Why is he giving his
readers worldwide a chance to Google him by mentioning him and outlining his
complaints against him (see transcript from V-dare below)? This makes no sense.
Has Peter ever spoken at a symposium before where he disagreed with a speaker?
Or does he always agree 100% with every speaker at every forum he attends?

She then brought up the fact that I might be offended by
Brimelow’s tactless joke about burning crosses and the Ku Klux Klan. So let me
go on record at this point and say, that Peter Brimelow need have no fear that
my lawyer is going to contact him for the offense of being in the same room
with me or cracking tactless jokes that the overwhelming majority of American
citizens would find offensive. If, however, a photo of the two of us comes into
my possession, he can take it off my hands by leaving $10,000 in unmarked bills
at the foot of the Washington Monument at a time to be mutually agreed upon.

I never knew that photos could be so important, or that they
could cause such panic. Once Brimelow and Peter Gemma started circulating their
e-mails, however, the panic among the fair weather culture warriors spread like
wildfire. Linda Muller, a conference attendee and Buchanan supporter, fired off
an e-mail of her which could serve as a primer on how not to react to pressure:
“Fran needs to end CYA [i.e., cover your ass] and do a long-winded PRIVATE mea
culpa,” which involved the following steps:“1) Admit the mistake; 2) Apologize profusely; 3) Denounce
E. Michael Jones; 4) Define a thorough separation from Jones — Sam Francis and
those who attended the event.” Mrs. Muller, who describes herself as a
“traditional Catholic,” would have loved Stalin’s show trials. She is also
probably a fan of cropping photos to delete disgraced members of the Politburo.
I say this because her first reaction to my speech indicated sympathy for that
behavior. Once the panic
gripped her, Muller sabotaged the Sam Francis website, “I just deleted every
reference to the conference off the shotsfired.us
website. If anyone has an issue with that, they can try to justify it with me
directly.” (Oddly enough, Fran Griffin, the owner of the site, did have an
issue with that.) By the end of her e-mail, Muller was recommending that
everyone pretend that I had never set foot in Washington. “Right now I suggest
the best thing for all of us to do is to act like the conference never
happened.”

Now, given the face that my DNA has inflicted on me, I can
understand why people might not want to be photographed standing next to me. I
have been told that faces like mine can break cameras, and given the expensive
cameras in operation during the conference, who would want to be held liable
for the expense of repairing them?

But what I can’t understand is how someone like Peter
Brimelow could be held accountable for a talk that I gave. He doesn’t look at
all like me. He is much more handsome than I am. His hair is gray, and my hair,
at least most of it, is brown. He has had two Irish Catholic wives (the first
one died), and so far I haven’t had any. (My first wife, the one I am still
married to, was an Episcopalian.) There was no possibility of mistaken identity
at the conference either. When he took to the podium during the Q and A
afterward, Mr. Brimelow shook his fist at me claiming, “I like Elizabethan
England.” There could have been no possibility of mistaken identity because I
clearly expressed the opposite point of view during my talk.

So why all this nervousness about pictures and making sure
that the Washington Times spiked the story they were going to run and
making sure that C-Span never ran its footage of the conference? Why, in other
words, was this conference sabotaged by the very people who should have wanted
to promote it? The answer is fear. Washington is a primitive culture which runs
on the sympathetic magic known as guilt by association.The denizens of this primitive culture
run in fear of guilt by association because it is inflicted on them on an
ongoing basis. One of the few sensible reactions to the talk came from Taki,
the Greek playboy co-publisher of the American Conservative, who weighed
in about two weeks after the conference on his blogsite. Taki, who gave an
off-the-cuff talk about drinking champagne with Mickey Mantle, criticized me
for not talking about Sam Francis. Sam, as far as I know, did not have a lot to
say about Mickey Mantle, but he did pose the question “Are Jews White?” as I
mentioned in my talk,
and he did write an introduction to a book by Kevin MacDonald on the Jews.

But that wasn’t the profound part of what Taki had to say.
That came later, when he
wrote:“The trouble is in a
free society speakers are not vetted before they speak. None of us, Fran
Griffin included, were responsible for Michael Jones’s opinions—some (not all)
of which were right on, incidentally.” One wonders what free society Taki is
talking about here, certainly not Washington, DC, where the prime rule of
discourse is guilt by association. This system of control only works if you can
be held responsible for the views of the people sitting next to you. That is
what happened to John Sharpe. That fact of life is what sent Peter Brimelow
into hysterics. That is what provides the maximum amoung of intimidation in the
political control of discourse. Taki, in this regard, is either more courageous
or less perceptive than Linda Muller and Peter Brimelow, who are smart enough
to know that the system of intimidation can only work if everyone else in the
room could be held responsible and punished for the views that I expressed. If
everyone believed what Taki believed, the system of guilt by association would
collapse overnight. Since the system is in full force, it should be obvious
that no one believes that people can only be held accountable for what they themselves
say. If that were the case, why would Peter Brimelow and Linda Muller have
exhibited such a panic attack for things they had not said?

A refreshing exception to the fear that pervaded the
conference was my meeting with Willis Carto. When it comes to Washington
photographs, Willis Carto is even more radioactive than E. Michael Jones.
Willis Carto could make a fortune in Washington by being paid to be
photographed beside any candidate’s political enemies, but instead he is the
publisher of The American Free Press and The Barnes Review, at
whose offices Willis and Michael Collins Piper interviewed me after the talk.
After I expounded on the thesis of the revolutionary Jew for about an hour,
Willis said, “So you don’t hold much to the racial explanation of Christian
identity,” a position he defended in a pamphlet he sent to me.To which I said, “No, the New
Israel is the Catholic Church. It has no racial identity.” So we agreed to
disagree, knowing that two grown men with two different sets of ideas could
talk to each other intelligently and be open and frank about our differences.
Before I left, Willis insisted that one of his staffers take a picture of us
together, at which point I turned to Willis and said, “This picture is going to
ruin your career.”

Next to lust and greed, guilt by association is the most
common form of political control in Washington. Perhaps Mr. Brimelow was
nervous because, after attacking the idea that race could explain anything of
significance, including the race wars of the 1960s, I mentioned what had just
happened to Lt. Cmdr. John Sharpe. This is what I had to say about John Sharpe
in my revised talk,
which did not appear in Culture Wars:

The same forces which used the NAACP to turn the Negro into
the revolutionary vanguard in the United States, the same forces which
subverted the idea of conservatism, are still at work today. As Nelson Algren
once said, every movement begins as a cause, becomes a business, and ends up
being a racket. This is nowhere more true than in the civil rights movement,
where the NAACP made the transition from cause to business, and the name of the
racket is the Southern Poverty Law Center. In case you haven’t noticed, the
SPLC has declared war on Catholics. Traditional Catholicism is now featured as
harboring 100,000 anti-Semites. I have been listed as one of the most prominent
of those 100,000, even though I am not now nor have I ever been a
traditionalist. Another man on the list is Lt. Commander John Sharpe, who has
just been put on administrative leave as public relations officer on the USS
Carl Vinson pending an investigation into his involvement in “supremacist”
organizations.

Why has John Sharpe, an Annapolis graduate and career officer
in the Navy, incurred the wrath of the SPLC? Was it because he plotted to blow
up a Church in the South? Was it because he was lowering in the bushes in
Mississippi with a rifle waiting to shoot civil rights marchers? Was it because
he was a member of the Ku Klux Klan? Was it because he believes in racial
supremacy? Was it because he urged people to harm Jews? No, John Sharpe was
singled out for persecution because he was a Catholic and because he decided
that he didn’t want to go along with all of the Catholic prostitutes—Father
Sirico of the Acton Institute springs immediately to mind— who were claiming
that free market laissez faire capitalism was completely compatible with what
the popes had to say in encyclicals like Rerum Novarum and Quadragesimo Anno.
John Sharpe made the mistake of re-publishing distributist classics by writers
like G. K. Chesterton and Hilaire Belloc, and for that his patriotism has been
called into question.

But it wasn’t just distributism that got John in trouble with
the SPLC. It was also his two-volume attack on the war in Iraq, Neoconned and Neoconned
Again, to which I contributed. The slanderers at the SPLC referred to the
Neoconned volumes as containing “several articles by racists and
anti-Semites.”If the Navy had
taken the time to look at the book the SPLC cited they might have found
notorious anti-Semites like Noam Chomsky, Paul Gottfried, and Jeff Steinberg
among its contributors. Why would a Jew hater include Jews among the
contributors to his book? Probably because he is not what the SPLC says he is.
The article in the Navy Times attacking John Sharpe was based on the
legwork of the SPLC’s paid troupe of character assassins, and it gives new
credence to the old oxymoron joke about military intelligence.

In the end, when Father Scalia entered his hospital room and
asked him if he wanted the sacraments of the Church, Sam Francis chose the
Higher Logos, and we can honor him by choosing the cause of Logos as we enter
the next phase of the culture wars. Both Sam Francis’s deathbed conversion to
Catholicism and the persecution of John Sharpe are symbolic of a shift in the
culture wars. The offensive launched by the Southern Poverty Law Center is the
best indication I can offer that the main front in the culture wars is now the
confrontation between Jews and Catholics. The Enlightenment is finally dead.
There are no more quasi-Masonic movements, where each of us can rise above
whatever sect he belongs to and join the Lodge known as “conservatism” or
liberalism, or whatever. I think we, no matter what our religious or ethnic
background, should rejoice at this development because in this confrontation 1)
the Church has both a history and a set of beliefs that will lay to rest forever
the charge of anti-Semitism and destroy it as a tool of political oppression
and 2) because no matter how much they want to finesse the attack by focusing
on what they consider fringe groups, the Jews have taken on a considerable
group of people, who will react eventually to the attack. The situation in
Hungary now is a case in point.

And finally, we should be happy because the attack clearly
defines the terms of engagement, all of which are all spiritual. The
revolutionary Jew is our enemy because he is a rejecter of Logos, not because
of his DNA. We are not anti-Semites because we oppose the machinations of the
revolutionary Jew. No, we are true Christians because of that, as the Church
from the time of St. Peter onward has proclaimed. Like St. Peter and St. Paul,
we are suffering at the hands of the Jews, “the people who put the Lord Jesus
to death, and the prophets too. And now they have been persecuting us, and
acting in a way that cannot please God and makes them the enemies of the whole
human race” (I Thess 1:15).

We are now engaged in a battle which has ebbed and flowed
over the centuries, but the sides in this battle have not changed. What has
changed are the odds. The Jews have never been stronger; the Catholics have
never been weaker, but the outcome of spiritual battles—and the battle for the
soul of the West, as Tolkien knew, is a spiritual battle—no matter what the
odds, is rarely predictable. If St. Paul, representing the Christian position,
has to say, “When I am weak, I am strong.” Then the revolutionary Jew,
representing the opposite position has to say, “When I am strong, I am
weak.”We are outgunned on every
front in the culture wars, but that is no reason for despair, if we follow the
Logos that St. Paul followed, because he was outgunned by the Jews too,
outgunned but not undone, saying, “We are hard pressed on every side, but not
crushed; perplexed, but not in despair; persecuted, but not abandoned; struck
down but not destroyed.”

And so, as Theoden said, “we come to it in the end, the great
battle of our time, in which many things will pass away. But at least there is
no longer need for hiding.” Nor, might we add, any place to hide. Many if not
most of us are here today because our careers have already been destroyed by
the revolutionary Jew and his goyische front men. The Jews spy on us through
our computers. They suborn fellow Catholics to betray us, get us fired, prevent
us from speaking. Our backs are to the wall. But in attacking John Sharpe, the
SPLC has created the American Catholic version of the Dreyfus affair. They have
clarified the issue. By going along with their slanders, the Navy has put
itself on trial. It is our duty to play the cards which providence has dealt
us.We have never been weaker, and
our enemies have never been stronger, but that is no reason for despair,
because as Elrond says, “this quest may be attempted by the weak with as much
hope as the strong.” And why is that? Because “such is the course of deeds that
move the wheels of the world: small hands do them as because they must, while
the eyes of the great are elsewhere.” (I, p. 283).

Perhaps the mention of John Sharpe made Peter Brimelow
nervous because if there were ever a man who was the victim of character
assassination via guilt by association, it was John Sharpe. On the day of my
talk, someone handed me an article which had just appeared in the Navy News.
Andrew Scutro, staff writer for that paper, quoted Heidi Beirich, one of the
Southern Poverty Law Center’s paid character assassins, as saying that she
“witnessed him [John Sharpe] selling books at a gathering of a group known as
‘American Renaissance,’ that welcomes activists to ‘help the cause of whites,’
according to its web site.” Sharpe countered by claiming that American
Renaissance was “the white man’s version of the NAACP” and that he was there to
sell books. He also mentioned that he had attended a meeting of progressive
Democrats for the same reason. Interestingly, the SPLC did not accuse John
Sharpe of being a liberal Democrat because of that fact. Publishers go to
events to sell their books, not to endorse the views of the speakers there.
Sharpe’s Neoconned and Neoconned Again volumes opposed the war in
Iraq and so might have found acceptance in left-wing circles, but the SPLC
ignored that fact because it did not serve their main interest, which was
character assassination via guilt by association. In her response to the Navy
Times reporter, Ms. “Beirich scoffed at Sharpe’s apparent ignorance of the
subversive nature of the American Renaissance. “Literally next to him,” Beirich
continued, “in the next booth, was a guy selling ‘White Power’ T-shirts . . . .
You had to be an idiot not to know where you were.”

Which is true enough. But no one is claiming that John Sharpe
didn’t know where he was. He is claiming that he attended the conference to
sell books, but Ms. Beirich is claiming that he is guilty of racism because of
the T-shirts the man in the booth next to him was selling. Conspicuous by its
absence from this exercise in guilt by association was any mention of the books
that he was selling or their contents.

I noticed the same thing in the SPLC attack on me. After
announcing that my wife and I almost made it to Woodstock on our honeymoon
(something you would think would endear me to the hearts of SPLC supporters),
Beirich et al announced that I had sponsored a conference in Germany on
“deracination,” something dear to the hearts of neo-Nazis. First of all, after
reading this feeble attempt at character assassination via guilt by association,
I became aware 1) that the Einsteins at the SPLC didn’t know that the word
“deracination” refers to roots and not race and 2) that they aren’t in the
practice of consulting the dictionary when they run across big words that they
don’t understand. But their intention was clear. I was a Nazi because I held a
conference in Germany and used a big word that they didn’t understand.

But let’s engage in a thought experiment that will make guilt
by association even easier for the cub reporters at the SPLC. Suppose for a moment that I had addressed a Neo-Nazi rally in Germany. Is
there any doubt in anybody’s mind what I would have told them? I would have
given exactly the same speech that I gave at the Sam Francis memorial in Washington.
I would have told them that our enemy is the revolutionary Jew, and that racism
is stupid because it prevents us from addressing the real problem, which is the
Jewish rejection of Logos and not any malignant (or mystical) DNA. If, by some
miracle of regeneration, Adolf Hitler had been present at my talk, I would have
told him the same thing and would not have been contaminated because of any
proximity to him. If Adolf Hitler at this point stepped forward to have his
picture taken standing beside me, I would have said to him what I said to Joe
Sobran and Willis Carto, “Adolf, this picture will ruin your career.”

Guilt by association is an old story. It is an old Jewish
story as well. The Pharisees, if you’ll remember, criticized Jesus for eating
with prostitutes and tax-collectors, as if somehow their sins could contaminate
the Logos. His response was to say that it is the sick who need the doctor and
to dismiss the idea that anything that goes into a man’s mouth makes him
unclean. No, the Christian believes that it is what comes out of your mouth and
heart that makes you unclean, and this statement posits the a fortiori
truth that we are not responsible for what comes out of someone else’s mouth.

So, as the pope once said, “Be not afraid, Peter.” When it
comes to guilt by association, the choice is fairly clear: we can choose the
Logos which sets us free to engage the world in dialogue and allows us
Christian freedom of association, or we can succumb to Jewish taboo and fear of
the Jews and the constant anxiety that we can at any moment be expelled from
the synagogue of political correctness and respectability by an involuntarily
incurred instance of intellectual ritual impurity. Once our culture turned away
from Christ and began to embrace the Talmud, fear of ritual impurity would
become one of the main instruments of political control, a fact nowhere more
evident than in Washington.

The more we delve into this matter the more evident the
hypocrisy associated with guilt by association becomes, as one of the main
forms of political control. To get back to our original instance, John Sharpe
is being demonized by the character assassins at the Southern Poverty Law
Center as an anti-Semite because he attended an American Renaissance
conference. Yet, if we log on to the SPLC website and type American Renaissance
into their search engine, we find that the SPLC has good things to say about
that racist organization.In fact,
a quick search of the SPLC web site informs us that AR president Jared Taylor
is “an opponent of anti-Semitism.” Shawn Mercer, the man in charge of the
American Renaissance’s web discussion group, we are told, “deletes most
postings excoriating the Jews.”This only confirms what we have learned from other sources. In an obit
on Sam Francis which appeared in the American Conservative, we were told
that Jared Taylor wanted to do for white nationalism what William F. Buckley
did for conservatism. And what is that? Well, to subvert it in the interests of
the Jews. One of the entries at the SPLC site claims that “It is well-known
that the American Renaissance does not allow anti-Semitism; it is uptown, 100%
clean WN [white nationalism]. Call it a first step if you like, but it is a
very important first step, and Jared Taylor has had success.”

Success in what? The dirty secret of “uptown” racism is that
it offers cover to revolutionaries by claiming that Jews are white—hence Sam’s
question, hence the uproar my exploration of that question caused among the
“uptown” race crowd. As I said in my talk, the real armature of the culture
wars is ethnic not racial. The American Renaissance is exactly what John Sharpe
said it was, although not quite in the way that he intended. The American
Renaissance is the white man’s version of the NAACP, which is to say, one more
organization which manipulates the race issue in the interests of the
revolutionary Jews. The main purpose of the American Renaissance is to convince
deracinated Protestants that Jews are white, and, therefore, no threat to their
interests. In obscuring the problem by playing the race card, the American
Renaissance engages in cultural mystification every bit as much as the NAACP
and the Black Panthers, two Jewish-run operations, did before them. In
obscuring the real nature of the culture wars, white nationalism becomes a form
of political control and a worthy successor to the Jewish-led black operation
known as conservatism. No wonder the race crowd was upset with my talk.

The race crowd, it turns out, was more upset by my talk than
the Jews. Even though I identified the revolutionary Jew as our enemy, I made
it clear that insofar as he follows Logos, the Jew is not our enemy. If the Jew
accepts the Higher Logos known as Catholic Christianity, he is not only not our
enemy, he is one of us. Throughout history, Jews have rejected the rejection of
Logos, and when they did one of the first things they proposed was burning the
Talmud. When Joseph Pfefferkorn converted to Catholicism in 1507, he gave
expression to his new-found zeal for the faith by wanting to burn the Talmud,
and the Cologne Dominicans supported him in his desire.

Nothing much has changed since then. The chattering class
both then (i.e., Erasmus and the humanists) and now was distinguished not so
much by their love for the Jews as by their skepticism about the efficacy of
baptism to change Jewish DNA, as if that were the issue. Both then and now, the
Jews who follow Logos and the Jewish converts to the higher Logos saw that
racism deprived the Jew of both his reason and his humanity. He was nothing
more than a function of his wicked DNA, which baptism could not change and
which Logos could not touch.

One of the people who attended the talk and who was not
afraid to have her picture taken with me (she, in fact, took many of the pictures)
was Kristin Kazyak, a spiritual daughter of Nicholas Donin, Joseph Pfefferkorn,
and Edith Stein. She was, in other words, a Jewess who had accepted the Higher
Logos and was, therefore, one of us:

I heard Jones speak on
March 20, 2007 at the Sam Francis conference at the Natl Press Club and
frankly, of all those who spoke Jones distinguished himself by a
presentation that was well-reasoned coupled with a delivery and demeanor
that fitted the type of intellectual discussion desired, needed and
invited.

Sadly, a couple of
those on the panel, either because they knew or hob knobbed with Sam
Francis were, in fact, emotionally disturbed dysfunctionals
who projected their racism and virulently anti-Catholic bigotry both
during their own lectures and also by disrupting the conference with startling,
as well as, embarrassing irrational acts and statements.

When Jones
failed to join them, they realized — like the Liberals at Vatican II
— they stood alone (foiled again which really exorcised them to projectile
vomit and foam at the mouth) in highlight with their racist and
bigoted statements and antics — engraved and burned for public consumption
on DVD and C-SPAN, and in VIVID contrastwith Jones and the other
guest lecturers who were well reasoned and who exhibited their good will (and
good manners).

Being of Jewish
descent (and not merely having a Jewish great-great-great grandmother
but a Jewish Mother and the very same Jewish Mother who conceived Jesus
Christ making Him one with His “People of The Name” — the
Blessed Ever-Virgin Mother Mary) with family members in Kozienice exterminated
at Treblinka and Auschwitz http://www.jewishgen.org/yizkor/Kozienice/kozXI.html#K I
have no sympathy for homosexuals (no descendants of Lot here) and little
sympathy for empty-headed demi-political Catholics (Protestants and
Liberal Revolutionary Jews) who fall for the homosexual agenda and attack
“neo-cons” for crawling OUT of the dank black scummy swamps of Chaos made by
Gay-jewish Revolutionaries, only to find themselves stumbling about on
stony ground during a BLACKOUT near-total eclipse of Faith and Reason
(while the winds and gates of Hell howl in vain maelstrom against the
Church).

In working the crowd after the talk Kazyak found that,
even though (or perhaps, because) I identified the revolutionary Jew as the
enemy, the Jews she spoke to were more sympathetic to my talk than the racists
were:

I’ve found
nothing in Jones’ book or his speech at the Sam Francis conference that Fr
John A Hardon, SJ (Saint pending) or Pope Benedict XVI would not agree with
entirely. I spoke with an undercover Jew (or two) at the conference who (being
of right reason and ergo “lower logos”) agreed as well and then some with
Jones! I would suggest a near future conference to include E. Michael Jones
and Rabbi Levin and certain others (of similar Moral Virtue
and intellectual fortitude) — it’s time WE came out with our Light from
under the bushel (her emphasis).

The doors of our
conference MUST be closed to ALL intellectual and moral predators.
(Leave faggots to shout their racism and anti-Catholic,
anti-Jewish bigotry at Queer Nation conferences — they can buy our unedited
DVDs). I think Sam’s conference dug the graves for some of his
former “hanger-ons” who have neither the moral nor intellectual capacity
to follow Sam to the Higher Logos. I don’t think they like being left behind,
but that Is LIFE, and the difference between willing
LIFE and choosing death.

They can
continue to choose death. Sam willed Life. We can pray for those who choose the
gods of Chaos rather than the One God, Who Is Love, Truth and Life but I’d fire
up our thermonuclear detonators along with our laser swords and shields and beg
the Angel with the Flaming Sword, as well, to keep the Chaos OUT
(demoniacs can gnash their teeth outside our conference doors) and Eternally
far from US in the event of any future conferences — open to all men
of good will who love the Truth — both lower logos and Higher Logos.

So what I said in my talk about the Jewish subversion
of the civil rights movement and the Jewish attempt to turn the Negro into the
revolutionary vanguard in the United States is a fortiori true of white
racism. The SPLC supports “uptown” racism of the American Renaissance variety,
because the SPLC, like the NAACP before it, is an essentially Jewish
organization. Supporting “uptown” racism absolves the revolutionary Jew of any
responsibility in the culture wars by giving them the cover of being “white,”
and once they are certified as white, they are certified as “good” because of
their DNA. How any one can believe this mumbo jumbo is beyond me. If you want a
more detailed explanation, I suggest that you contact Jared Taylor.

So, the answer to the question Sam Francis posed and which
began my talk, “Are Jews white?” is yes. Jews are white in the eyes of the
American Renaissance, and as a result the SPLC, which is a Jewish organization,
which is ostensibly against racism, supports them in their efforts to redefine
Jews out of the cultural equation. Once race becomes the all-important issue,
Jews disappear from the radar screen because, well, because they are not black.
John Sharpe, on the other hand, who is being attacked because he is Catholic
and upholds the traditional Catholic position on the Jews is demonized as an
anti-Semite because of his tenuous association with a group, American
Renaissance, which the SPLC goes out of its way to certify as not anti-Semitic.

Is
that clear? No? If it isn’t, it’s because guilt by association is fundamentally
irrational. It is the hallmark of a group of people who derive their identity
from hatred of Logos. Insofar as we embrace the Logos, we are absolved from
these fears. Just as Jesus could eat with whores and tax-collectors, we can get
our pictures taken with Joe Sobran and Willis Carto and even people like Peter
Brimelow without fear of contamination. The more we embrace the light, the less
we will be kept in the dark by the deliberate manipulation of racial doctrines
whose purpose is to keep us all divided, confused, and full of fear.

The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit
and Its Impact on World Historyby E. Michael Jones. Jews for Jesus versus
Jews against Jesus; Christians versus Christians versus Jews. This book is the
story of such contests played out over 2000 turbulent years. In his most
ambitious work, Dr. E. Michael Jones provides a breathtaking and controversial
tour of history from the Gospels to the French Revolution to Neoconservatism
and the “End of History.” $48 + S&H, Hardback. [In ordering for shipment
outside the U.S., the book's price will appear higher to offset increased
shipping charges.] Read
Reviews